However, beginning the mid-2000s, we find that several geographers have as well played a critical role in these discussions; usually they use the word political motilities in place of the term policy transfer (Araral, Fritzen and Howlett, 2012).
However, the most important review of the literature on the policy transfer that was carried out in the year 1996, examined several questions including the definition of policy transfer; who transfers policy; the reason for transfer of policy; what is transferred; whether there is existence of policy transfer; and the factors that limit the transfer of policy. Nonetheless, to different levels or degrees, the literature on the policy transfer has from then examined several such questions substantially. For instance, when reviewing the question of ‘who,’ the things that are cited include the role and responsibilities of officials who are elected, civil servants, political parties, policy professionals, and pressure groups (Knill and Tosun, 2012).
Policymaking is always about the planning of lessons among and between those that carry it out, policy governance, institutions, together with governance units, at all the governance levels. Consequently, a central or key feature of the policy-making encompasses taking lessons from the errors that may have been committed in the past so that they cannot be repeated again; from the possible analysis or review of what the future carries; and usually from what are being done by others or even what others have done. This paper is going to critically review the opportunities and limitations of policy transfer. The, opportunities and limitations are discussed, and then a conclusion, which will be a summative review of the ideas discusses in the paper.
In general, there are opportunities that are presented or exist in the transfer policy that vary from one feature or context to another. In the discussion of the policies and